So let’s take some time to revisit last week’s emotional, beautiful funeral services for our 41st president, George Herbert Walker Bush.

I wrote several things about the service last week, with one of those things being to point out how the current president, Donald J. Trump, acted like a petulant child (per usual) and refused to participate in the service, by reciting the Apostles’ Creed.

As I have pointed out, numerous times since that day, there would probably have been little attention paid to the image of a sour-faced Trump, standing board-straight, with the service program that contained the text of the creed held in the hand dangling at his side, were we not continuously bombarded by the Trumpian hordes with proclamations of his great, Christian faith.

Even former President Barack Obama, definitely no friend of Christians, was at least respectful enough to read along with the congregation.

It is the unearned exaltation of Donald Trump by evangelical Christians that put his faith life under a microscope.

So once again, let me remind folks of what the Apostles’ Creed is.

It is a statement of the Christian faith, not written by the 12 who followed Jesus, but long used by Christians to proclaim their faith in what those apostles taught throughout the New Testament.

And by “Christians” I mean regardless of denomination.

I’m finding that along with ignorance of the Apostles’ Creed, there are also Christians who have heard of the creed, but feel it doesn’t apply to them because they’re not Roman Catholic.

That misunderstanding is due to the word “catholic” that appears within the text of the creed.

Relax, folks. “catholic,” in that context, has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church. It simply means the unified body of Christians.

I would challenge those who are not familiar with it to make it a point to check it out and see for themselves if it lines up with their beliefs.

I would also point out that if it does not, then you are not a Christian. How could you be? Faith in Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, death on the cross, and resurrection on the third day is at the very heart of the Christian faith. There’s not a word within the creed you can question and still claim to be a regenerated believer.

Was Trump (or any Christian) required to read it, in order to prove their salvation?

Not at all, but again, Trump drew attention to himself for his stubborn refusal to participate in a touching, spiritual ceremony.

Ok. I’ve taken us back here because it’s time call out Trump’s evangelical defenders.

One of those massive disappointments would be Franklin Graham, son of the legendary Evangelist Billy Graham.

Graham took to his Facebook page to attack those who pointed out Trump’s behavior at President Bush’s service.

“Guess what — I don’t usually sing in church. Why? Because I can’t carry a tune! And, I have no rhythm,” Graham wrote. “I have to watch someone else clapping or I get off beat, so usually I just keep my hands in my pockets. Look around in church sometime — lots of people aren’t singing.”

Ok. I have no idea what Graham’s singing has to do with the very simple task of reading from a script, as part of a funeral service, but…

Graham then blamed the media for launching the firestorm surrounding Trump not reciting the creed.

“Isn’t it a shame that the media and the Trump-haters couldn’t even let the funeral of a well-loved president go by without trying to find fault with President Donald J. Trump?” Graham asked. “Shame on them. Nay-sayers always pointing an accusing finger. Instead, let’s be thankful for all of the incredibly positive things he has done for our country (it’s a long list) and lift him and Melania up in our prayers.”

The reverend is more concerned for temporary political wins than upholding a godly image or winning souls.

Will a tax cut save a single soul? Are executive orders included in the Great Commission? How about rolling back regulations, or appointing Supreme Court judges?

After newly-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with liberal justices to reject a fair hearing on a case to defund abortion centers in some states on Monday, I think we can put aside hope for a SCOTUS pick that makes a difference.

Which of those things make a smooth path for a lost soul seeking redemption? When the dark and hurting world looks for salvation, which of those things lights the way, and which of those things will any of us take into the life after this one?

Graham further took his act to his Twitter page.

“The Pharisees are after @POTUS because he didn’t sing at the funeral of President George H.W. Bush or recite the Apostles’ Creed,” the 66-year-old Graham wrote.

The Pharisees had no belief in Jesus as savior. They would not have recited the Apostles’ Creed, either.

The Pharisees, as Jesus pointed out, wanted to be close to power. They wanted the best seats at the banquet table, and to be exalted in the squares of their communities.

They also condemned Christ. Are we to now assume Graham is equating Donald Trump to Christ?

I read Graham’s Facebook post. The amount of people scoffing at the Apostles’ Creed (see: condemning a declaration of faith in somebody not named Trump), ignorant of what it was, or just there to be nasty against those who fail to support Trump was depressing.

Many of them even said, outright, “I don’t believe in it.”

This is what devotion to Trump has stirred up in the evangelical corners of the American church body.

It’s an ugliness unlike anything I’ve ever experienced in my life.

I would like to believe Franklin Graham is simply misguided, but the man is the son of Billy Graham. He has forged an incredible ministry, in his own right. That he has shown himself incapable of speaking out against Trump’s behavior, or at the very least just staying out of it, is going to ruin his family name, I am afraid.

Some have even gone as far as to say Trump’s refusal to proclaim Christ openly just proves the Cyrus excuse some have been using about Trump.

That’s a stretch. And it’s equally disgusting, to be frank.

I’m left to question how much proof do those “Trump Christians” need before they start caring about the reputation of the Christian church more than they do political wins?

“Guess what — I don’t usually sing in church. Why? Because I can’t carry a tune! And, I have no rhythm,” Graham wrote. “I have to watch someone else clapping or I get off beat, so usually I just keep my hands in my pockets. Look around in church sometime — lots of people aren’t singing.”

As someone who was raised religious and ended up abandoning it: Atheism isn’t this thing where you wake up one day and decide you’re an atheist. It’s a gradual change over time. I used to sing along in church, do the rituals, etc. Got a little older, church goes through some scandals, and then I don’t sing as much, but still attend and do the rituals. Got a little older, more scandals, church still does nothing, and I’m beginning to question why I sing or do the rituals in the first place. I start questioning the church and get told to repent / I’m living in sin. Finally, another church member announces that she’s perfectly fine about being ignorant about something, because she has faith in God instead. I don’t even remember what it was, it’s not important. That statement breaks me, I associate religion=ignorance and become the fine, outstanding atheist you see before you today.

So, why the story? Because the same thing that happened to me, Franklin Graham is doing to the church today. The people not singing in church is evidence of it. Graham is creating legions of me, but isn’t smart enough to recognize what he’s actually doing.

IllinoisPatriot

There’s not a word within the creed you can question and still claim to be a regenerated believer.

And yet I do.

I question the belief that a certain man, sitting in a certain chair speaks for God and that his pronouncements are binding on God.

I question the belief that the same man sitting in the same chair has the divine authority to pick and choose spiritual “winners” that will become “saints”, somehow worthy of being prayed to, despite our common agreement that Trump is not worthy of being prayed to.

I question that the “Holy Church” (usually a euphemism for the “Roman Catholic Church”) has any business redefining the relationship between God and individuals. The “Holy Church” is construct of man, run by man for centuries, corrupted and rededicated by man multiple times, modified, (even perverted) by man many times and splintered by man into multiple denominations and non-denominational spin-offs – each claiming to be purer than the Roman Catholics (the Church now known world-wide as protecters of pedophiles among the priesthood).

The Apostles Creed is good up until it starts swearing allegience to the “Holy Church” and to a collection of man-appointed saints that have no place in the covenant between God and Man that Jesus established during his time here on Earth. At that point, the Apostles Creed and I part ways.

This is along the same lines as the Roman Catholic version of the Lord’s Prayer omitting the line that states “For yours is the power and the glory forever” reportedly because the Church did not want to acknowledge that the power over sin belongs to God – not the Roman Catholic Priests that often required bribes in order to “forgive” sins.

For the foregoing reasons, I disagree with your statement above that “every word” of your creed must be believed in order to be saved from sin.

My instructions for salvation come from the Bible and ONLY from the Bible. I acknowledge no priest, pope, nor any other ecclesiastical denomination or entity as having any power to intrude into the personal relationship with Christ that following Jesus has allowed me to experience.

Now – having said all that, I still feel that Trump’s behavior was without excuse or acceptability and that he DID show his petulance and lack of Christian decency and manners quite plainly as even with the disagreements I have with the “Apostles Creed”, I would likely not have repeated the portion declaring fealty to the “Holy Church” (my faith is in Jesus Christ – and though I am a member of his Church (in the loosest possible meaning), I do not believe in the hierarchies and bureaucracies that come along with the man-made hoopla and rituals followed by the Roman Catholics and their close denominational kin. Nor would I have repeated any belief in the “communion of saints” since I do not believe that any man (regardless of the chair he may sit in) has been given authority by God to declare other men/women as “saints” and worthy of being prayed to.

It saddens me to think that because I do not believe in man-made divinity that you consider me less a follower of Christ than those that do.

Minarchism Leads To Freedom

Nicely put IP. I agree 100%

GotMyLoveGlassesOn

The Apostles’ Creed has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
I addressed that in the piece above.
Since everyone is genetically incapable of doing a dictionary search for the word ‘catholic,’ other than me, I’ll print this, once again:
Definition of catholic (Entry 1 of 2)
1a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal
b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it
c capitalized : ROMAN CATHOLIC
Her son goes to a Catholic school.
2 : COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL
especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests
a catholic taste in music

The second entry reads:
Definition of Catholic (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : a person who belongs to the universal Christian church
2 : a member of a Catholic church
especially : ROMAN CATHOLIC

As it mentions in the official definition, when capitalized, it relates to the Roman Catholic Church, but the little ‘c’ catholic, as is in the creed, simply means “Christians,” with no regards to denomination.
And when it mentions “the communion of saints,” it’s not talking about man-appointed saints.
According to the Bible, all who receive Christ are saints. At no point does the creed say someone has to appoint saints. It just says “I believe in the communion of saints” – or put another way, the gathering together of Christians.

Any problem you have with the creed is based on your misunderstanding – unless it really is your belief that there is no God in 3 persons, that Jesus did not die for our sins, rise from the dead, etc…

Bill in NC

If someone doesn’t believe in the particular faith being expressed at a wedding or funeral isn’t better that they don’t insincerely participate? Maybe Trump was being honest for a change?

Steven Andrew

The Trump Christians are among many so-called believers who’s actions make me feel very, very lucky to not be religious.

IllinoisPatriot

Most people (me included) will participate to the extent they are comfortable. That extends to and includes not showing up in the first place if I’m not comfortable with the faith at all or with their practices (such as a gay marriage or any satanic ritual). I MIGHT show up at a Catholic christening though I don’t believe in sprinkling babies (until the child can decide on their own to follow Jesus, I believe sprinkling them only makes them wet).

Attempting to participate as much as one is comfortable shows a measure of respect for the beliefs of others (either at the wedding or at funerals.

(I will even attend wedding ceremonies performed by a Justice of the Peace – I just think of it as a wedding in the Atheist religion).

AJ

I’m not going to touch on Graham or Trump because, quite frankly, I’m so DONE with talking about Trump (the man both utterly wearies AND irks me) and those who’ve pledged an unspoken allegiance to him. I guess this is to those who seemed to take offense to what Susan wrote:

I seriously don’t understand what all the hullabaloo is about. For the first six years of my life, I went to a private Christian school. The group of Believers who attended the church affiliated with my school decided, because of money, to shut down our K–12. Most of the kids who went to our school were shuttled to public schools. I, however, had a mother who decided it was better for me to go to a Catholic school (where Christ was worshiped and where Bible-based morals and values were taught) than to a public. It was at this Catholic school that I first learned about the Apostles’ Creed (and also the Nicene Creed). And I have to say I have NO problem with it. There’s nothing in it that should make non-Catholics so tense. As Susan says, it’s a declaration of our faith in the Godhead. I’ve always read the “communion of saints” just as Susan says: a gathering of Believers since, in the Bible, we’re called saints (see the end of this for an article explaining this very notion). I was also taught that, unlike what many believe, we don’t have to wait to die to become saints or perform some divine feat—once you accept Christ as your Savior, you are automatically “enrolled” as a saint. Also, as Susan points out, the word “catholic” has several meanings, and, well, in the Creed, it isn’t capitalized, which would point to the Catholic denomination, but lowercased, which means not the specific denomination but the “universal” definition. (Though, I’m certain, some Catholics do capitalize it to make it specific to their denomination just as I’ve seen some non-Catholic denominations change out the “catholic” for “Christian.”) In both cases, it seems to me a question of semantics, and I just don’t get the argument. If you don’t like the world “catholic,” then either change it to “Christian” so that you don’t feel as if you’re giving allegiance to the Catholic church—or just don’t say that part at all. Same with “saints.” Just say “Believers,” if the word “saints” causes such unease, or don’t say it at all. But surely we can agree that, sans these two words, the rest of it lines up with what should be the foundational beliefs of the Christian faith.

You know, as long as we hold these foundational tenets as truths, as long as we profess Christ as our Savior, acknowledge that He’s the Son of God, came to earth in human form, was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again to sit at the right hand of God to make intercession for us—then no matter what denomination we subscribe to, we’re Christians. If you’re a Methodist but you believe the above, you’re in the same boat as a Catholic who professes the same or a Lutheran or a Baptist… I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Jesus came not to uphold RELIGION but to proclaim something better than religion: a relationship with God through Jesus Himself. Jesus didn’t push a denomination. He said the only way to God was through Him—not through man-made rules and regulations. Man-made rules and regulations are what RELIGION is all about. Jesus came to make it possible for us to have access to the Father—OUR Father—through belief in Him and not through the tiring and impossible adherence to a bunch of rules.

When we get to Heaven, we’re going to find a lot of different people there—not just different colors but also different denominations, all worshipping Christ because we all proclaim Christ as the ONLY Way. Frankly, I’ve had enough of the Church as a whole being so divided because of adherence to man-made rules and regulations (a sort of my-way-or-the-highway approach to Christianity that says we have to believe in X or do Y, when it’s not some DENOMINATION’S way but CHRIST’S way because, as He said, He is the ONLY Way). I don’t care if you’re a Protestant, Catholic, Messianic Jew, Baptist, etc., as long as you claim Christ as your Savior and, yes, believe in the tenets set forth in the Apostles’ Creed, then you’re my brother or sister in Christ. Do certain denominations believe in rules or practices that differ from my beliefs? Yes. I believe in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. There are denominations that don’t. I’m not about to fuss and fight about those beliefs so long as you have the foundations of Christianity down: Jesus is the Son of God, came to earth, died, was buried, rose… Again, the Apostles’ Creed. If my Catholic brothers and sisters want to capitalize the “catholic” part, fine. Let them. I’m not about to raise a stink so long as they believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world, that, through His Sacrifice, as long as we accept Him as Savior, we’ve been adopted into God’s family and made the righteousness of Christ. If my Catholic brethren want to believe that only certain people can become saints—whatever. I don’t see that written in the Bible, but that belief isn’t going to keep them from salvation. I know some Catholics pray to saints (I say “some” because I was never taught that at the Catholic school I went to, but I do know some Catholics pray to saints), which isn’t, as I read and understand the Bible, Biblical, and I don’t agree with it, but, as long as they believe in Christ as the Savior of the world and claim Him as theirs, then it’s His job (through the Holy Spirit) to get them to see, as I see it, the error of their ways. In this case, I may mention to my Catholic brethren that I don’t agree and why, show them Biblical evidence, but anything more is not my job but the Holy Spirit’s. And I’m not going to get prickly about it. Taking offense is not something Christ professes either.

In two searches that I did, in neither place did I find that the Apostles’ Creed is solely a “Catholic church practice.” In fact, at Christianbook.com, they offer an Apostles’ Creed laminated wall chart, and the Product Description reads: “The Apostles’ Creed was written by early church leaders as a brief summary of what the Bible teaches about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, sin and forgiveness, and our eternal future. In today’s society, adults and children need to know what they believe.”

Even Wikipedia has this to say about the Apostles’ Creed: “The Apostles’ Creed…sometimes entitled Symbol of the Apostles, is an early statement of Christian belief—a creed or ‘symbol.’ It is widely used by a number of Christian denominations for both liturgical and catechetical purposes, most visibly by liturgical Churches of Western tradition, including the Catholic Church, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism. It is also used by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists.

“The Apostles’ Creed is Trinitarian in structure with sections affirming belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Apostles’ Creed was based on Christian theological understanding of the Canonical gospels, the letters of the New Testament, and to a lesser extent the Old Testament. Its basis appears to be the old Roman Creed known also as the Old Roman Symbol….

“…The earliest known mention of the expression ‘Apostles’ Creed’ occurs in a letter of AD 390 from a synod in Milan and may have been associated with the belief, widely accepted in the 4th century, that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each of the Twelve Apostles contributed an article to the twelve articles of the creed….”

None of what I’ve read (or what I wrote above) says anything that should raise such ruckus.

One more thing about the word “saint.” I haven’t actually perused this website (https://www.compellingtruth.org/Christian-saints.html) in toto to see if I believe everything that’s professed, but I liked their breakdown of the word “saint(s).” Rather than paraphrase, I’m going to put the whole “article”(entitled: What does the Bible say about Christian saints? What are saints?) below for the gentleman who seems to dislike the use of “saints” in the Apostles’ Creed.

“ ‘Saint’ originates from the Greek word meaning ‘holy’ or ‘set apart.’ For example, in Acts 9:13, Simon says, ‘Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints [set-apart people] at Jerusalem.’ Here, ‘saints’ refers to all the Christians at Jerusalem, not to a special group of Christians.

“The New Testament uses the word ‘saint’ or ‘saints’ 67 times. In every instance, the reference is to all believers (e.g., Acts 26:10; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2). Never is the word used of a special group of believers who serve God better than others. Scripture is clear that all Christians are saints.

“This biblical view is much different from the traditional Roman Catholic view of saints. In Catholic theology, saints are a special class of believers who have been canonized. Canonization is the process by which the Catholic Church confers sainthood upon a person based on that person’s special deeds. It is an honor bestowed posthumously. In contrast, the Bible views every Christian as a saint, as someone set apart for God’s work. Ephesians 4:12 teaches that the spiritual gifts are given ‘to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.’ Clearly, the ‘saints’ are ordinary Christians involved in service in the church.

“Christians are called saints because they are called to live set apart from the corruption of the world. Followers of Christ are called to be holy (1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Peter 1:15-16).

“Another interesting observation regarding the biblical view of ‘saints’ is that they are almost exclusively referred to in plural form—’saints.’ Even the one exception, found in Philippians 4:21, has more than one believer in mind: ‘Greet every saint in Christ Jesus.’ The church is a team.”

As I said, I’m fed up with Believers’ squabbling over petty issues. Susan’s point is valid—the Apostles’ Creed professes the very tenets of Christianity—yet a divide occurred over two words! Seriously?

Polarbearpapa

As to Graham

10 My child, listen to me and do as I say,

and you will have a long, good life.

11 I will teach you wisdom’s ways

and lead you in straight paths.

12 When you walk, you won’t be held back;

when you run, you won’t stumble.

13 Take hold of my instructions; don’t let them go.

Guard them, for they are the key to life.

14 Don’t do as the wicked do,

and don’t follow the path of evildoers.

15 Don’t even think about it; don’t go that way.

Turn away and keep moving.

16 For evil people can’t sleep until they’ve done their evil deed for the day.

They can’t rest until they’ve caused someone to stumble.

Proverbs 4

As to Trump

13“Wicked people rebel against the light.

They refuse to acknowledge its ways

or stay in its paths.

Job 24

Ellen Elmore

ForIall my Evangelical friends, it is all about the political win. They don’t care about the reputation of the Christian faith or church. I keep getting reminded that
“at least he is not Hillary.” Therefore, whatever Trump does or says they will still support him.

anonymous

Evangelical Christians need to get over their belief that they can elect anyone into office that will “turn America back to God.” If the church acted as intended in the New Testament, believers would be busy doing the work of evangelism, helping their neighbor, mobilizing their churches towards missions involvement, etc. What we have at the moment is a church that believes ti can solve everything wrong for America by voting in the right people, while they provide worship “experiences” and try to deal with all their sexual and financial scandals. I love Jesus, and I love HIs church, but I am appalled at what is occurring with the church in America. The church I currently attend is redemptively involved in our local community, missions-minded, and just tells us to vote. Politics is not preached from the pulpit, and the church is much healthier as a result.

Calling anyone a Pharisees who questions Trump’s religious beliefs or fidelity to the Constitution has been a Branch Trumpidian talking point from the beginning. It’s unoriginal sophistry and their use of the term has no historical context behind it. But if that is where Franklin Graham wants to go, then let us consider the hypocrisy the Pharisees were known for.

“If he [President Bill Clinton] will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?”, wrote Graham back in 1998. My what a moral difference the letter (D) or (R) behind one’s name makes. I don’t recall Graham selling t-shirts which said pray for Clinton or Obama as he is doing with Trump.

And whatever happened to Graham in 2015 quitting the Republican Party in disgust over their continue funding of Planned Parenthood? Which by the way Trump has continued funding. It’s empty rhetoric to proclaim as Graham did that “unless more godly men and women get in this process and change this wicked system, our country is in for trouble,” only to turn around and prop up a ungodly man such as Trump. It’s the equivalent of Trump warning about the impending failures of socialism while working to implement socialist policies.

While the “Cyrus Excuse” is flawed, it is the least offensive because Cyrus was a pagan king. The more offensive argument is Graham whitewashing Trump’s sins by comparing him to Moses and David. For context, he did that a month before the 2016 Republican National Convention (i.e. before Trump was even nominated).

“The sin of David stands out like a tar-baby in a field of snow, like a blackberry in a bowl of cream. It may cause us to miss the greatness of the man. Remember that sin was the exception in David’s life—not the pattern of it. The Word of God does not play down the sin of David; it does not whitewash the man. God doesn’t say it is not sin. God is going to call it sin, and David will be punished for it.” ~J. Vernon McGee

JASmius

My pastor of almost thirty years couldn’t sing a lick, either. Completely tone-deaf. Voice like a marathon runner in the last hundred yards running up a cliff. But he always sang the loudest of any of us. Why? Because, as he always said, the LORD doesn’t care how well we sing, but THAT we sing, because doing so is part of worshiping Him. And in eternity, we as believers will all be able to sing perfectly in that heavenly choir.

Therefore, it’s difficult to determine which of Graham’s excuses are the more lamentable – the ones for Trump, or the ones for himself.

Halftrack2

Don’t let morons like Graham or Falwell jr. stop you from reading and believing Your Bible…Let it speak to you and teach you the Truth about God and the Church…True the Grahams, Falwells and Jeffress of the world can destroy a person’s faith in man but not God…

Halftrack2

Graham is grabbing at straws to cover for the pagan that is Drumpf….

Halftrack2

Amen and Amen…

Halftrack2

Strong possibility…

chemical

Thanks for your concern, but that was actually the problem. Morons like Graham and Falwell Jr. didn’t stop me from reading the Bible. They caused me to start reading it, because I was tired of being spoon-fed scripture from self-righteous blowhards with an agenda to push. I went straight to the source.

Take the atheist challenge: Read the Bible in its entirety. Not piecemeal Bible study groups, start at Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.” and go all the way through Revelations. It’s a difficult read — Genesis and Exodus start off easy enough because they actually read like a story, but then come Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, where Moses is mostly laying down the law, which is kind of boring because he’s just dictating how his fresh out of Egypt tribe should live. There are also books like Job (my personal favorite) that are essentially stand alone stories, so it has its moments. But if you power through the whole thing, you’ll have a vastly different perspective about Christianity than you did before.

Pete

Graham and Trump are nothing but scumbags all they care about is money.